On the Repeatability of 3D Point Cloud Segmentation Based on Interest Points
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Object recognition systems that use 3D point cloud as the input data are potentially subjected to the problems of signal attenuation at a local level, or occlusions in cluttered scenes. In an attempt to develop more robust methods in handling these problems, the present paper introduces the notion of repeatable regions through a 3D region segmentation algorithm based on the extraction of repeatable interest points. A segmentation method presented is presented which is capable of segmenting 3D images of free-form objects using piece-wise boundary curves and regions reconstructed from extracted interest points. An experimental evaluation was devised to confirm the repeatability of segments in various realistic scenes, including cluttered and partially occluded scene. Three different 3D free-form objects in seven 2.5D scenes were tested in the experiment, with results showing that out of the top 15 selected regions from each 3D model, an average of six repeatable segmented regions with at least one correctly segmented region were recorded for each scene. This shows that highly repeatable regions can be localized and used to drive robust object recognition in 3D data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".